Talk:Shiatsu

Context

The statement saying that "There is no scientific evidence to prove that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer" needs context. It seems to imply that there are claims shiatsu does cure or prevent cancer. I've never heard of such claims, although I must say I'm not by any means familiar with shiatsu.

The article does very little in describing what shiatsu is or purports to be, yet "debunks" at length, without making clear where these allegedly debunked claims originate from. (Why "allegedly"? Because saying e.g. "There is no evidence that Aspirin cures cancer" does not "debunk" anything if nobody ever claimed otherwise.) GregorB (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As CRUK say: "Shiatsu practitioners believe that the therapy stimulates the circulation of your blood, helps to release toxins and tension from your muscles, and stimulates your hormonal system. This is believed to help the body heal itself." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the article needs to say that. That's the very point of asking for context. While the current wording is better, it would be nice to have some more specific claims regarding what exactly shiatsu is supposed to do. Otherwise, the statement I mentioned above will tend to appear like a straw man argument. GregorB (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Scientific reviews have found no evidence that shiatsu is useful to treat any disease or condition.[1][2] - the cited articles do not support the statement 24.102.164.9 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

since you repeated this below, am addressing it in one place - there. Jytdog (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

recent changes

Eikoku please do discuss your proposed changes. I especially don't understand this part that you added: Shiatsu can however help in reducing pain. Examples where scientific studies have shown a positive effect include neck pain and lower back pain,

References

The source doesn't mention shiatsu. I know [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiatsu&type=revision&diff=660798247&oldid=660777228 your edit note" said "shiatsu is a form of acupressure". if it really is the same and not distinct, perhaps we should just merge this article into acupressure (i don't think it is the same, btw)?

The changes include removal of what appears to be appropriate sourced text and adding commentary that are rebutted in that section by remaining text. Googling "shiatsu" and "accupressure" together shows that practitioners have a varied assessment of the relationship between the two. It should also be noted that just because one modality is a subset of a larger modality, that a discussion of the larger modality cannot be used to justify for a discussion of the subset, logically. We cannot use sources that speak of accupressure in general for a discussion of a subset of accupressure even if it were true one is the subset of the other. Yobol (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yobol If you look at the talk page on Shiatsu you can see may people who practice Shiatsu complaining about the biased nature of the web page - I find it odd in this context that while I am editing, on such a page, edits are being undone. For example I have not been able to finish cross reference to articles about shiatsu / acupressure in Biomedcentral / PLOS etc because they are being undone while I am editing. Yobol has also deleted cross references to the law in Japan that regulates shiatsu practitioners.

Shiatsu is a type of acupressure - namely it is a discipline that it functions by putting pressure on meridians on the body. As a type of acupressure why cannot articles that refer to acupressure be referred to under shiatsu? It is a bit like saying articles on tubers cannot be cross referred to on pages about potatoes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Please see this study of literature from London South Bank University that is a literature review of Shiatsu and Acupressure - making no distinction: http://www.shiatsusociety.org/sites/default/files/SystematicReviewJULY2011cs31aug2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry just seen how to add a signature - apologies. Eikoku (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

glad you figured that out. the source doesn't agree with your claims: first "Much of the evidence was for protocol-based acupressure using set acupoints, which has limited application to Shiatsu practice. The nature of shiatsu, as distinct from acupressure, is that it is a complex intervention whose techniques, including diagnostic, and effects are implemented within the individual therapeutic relationship between the practitioner and client in every treatment and are invariably different each time. This requires a complex and project specific methodological design which may include a combination of methods modified to suit the particular research question and research conditions." then "This review includes studies on both Shiatsu and acupressure, but it should be noted that the two treatments are not synonymous, although some Shiatsu practitioners incorporate acupressure as a technique. Evidence for the efficacy of acupressure may be used to support claims about the efficacy of some aspects of Shiatsu for specific conditions. " Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate Article

Updates being rejected while trying to update the Shiatsu page

As stated above amendments were being rejected actively during the actual process of update meaning that any attempts to have a better article shiatsu impossible because those rejecting are not taking the time to evaluate the merits of the changes.

WP:WALLOFTEXT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question has been asked – Should peer-reviewed journal articles on acupressure be linked to on the shiatsu page? Encyclopaedia Britannica which employ editors and has a network of experts, under Acupressure states “Acupressure or Shiatsu” as follows: Acupressure Alternate Title: Shiatsu Alternate title: shiatsu acupressure, or shiatsu, Alternative-medicine practice in which pressure is applied to points on the body aligned along 12 main meridians (pathways), usually for a short time, to improve the flow of vital force (qi). Though often referred to by its Japanese name, shiatsu, it originated in China thousands of years ago. A single point may be pressed to relieve a specific symptom or condition, or a series of points can be worked on to promote overall well-being. Some studies suggest that acupressure can be effective for certain health problems, including nausea, pain, and stroke-related weakness. Risks are minimal with cautious use. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1054679/acupressure So to my mind that would suggest rather conclusively, by an encyclopaedia with a world-wide reputation that one should be able to link to articles on acupuncture from the shiatsu page. How seriously is Shiatsu taken in Japan? One link to the website that has all Japanese laws that was deleted seconds after writing was e-gov.jp . The link is one showing Japanese Government regulates by law (Art 1.) not just doctors “第一条 　医師以外の者で ...” but those practising Shiatsu (Acupuncture etc) because it is viewed as a medical treatment having positive effects on health. http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO217.html This Wikipedia article states “There is no evidence that shiatsu is an effective medical treatment.” So what evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals on shiatsu / acupressure was I trying to link to which disproves this article which states “That is to say there is no evidence.” This article entitled “The evidence for Shiatsu: a systematic review of Shiatsu and acupressure” from Springer' / BioMedcentral which only surveyed literature in English (whereas most is in Japanese and Chinese) concludes that while there are few studies is felt were robust “The evidence for acupressure and pain is generally consistent and positive.” Again the terms shiatsu and acupressure are used relatively interchangeably in the article. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/11/88 This article “Effects of shiatsu in the management of fibromyalgia symptoms: a controlled pilot study”. from Elsevier (the world's largest and prestigious medical journal publisher) , on PubMed.Gov / US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23830713 concludes “This pilot study showed the potential of Shiatsu in the improvement of pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, sleep quality, and symptoms impact on health of patients with fibromyalgia.” So another peer-reviewed article that shows that shiatsu reduces pain. The abstract to “The effects of shiatsu on lower back pain” from the journal publisher Sage on PubMed.Gov / US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11847714 states “Both pain and anxiety decreased significantly over time. Extraneous variables such as gender, age, gender of therapist, length of history with lower back pain, and medications taken for lower back pain did not alter the significant results. These subjects would recommend shiatsu massage for others suffering from lower back pain and indicated the treatments decreased the major inconveniences they experienced with their lower back pain.” This article “Auricular Acupressure to Improve Menstrual Pain and Menstrual Distress and Heart Rate Variability for Primary Dysmenorrhea in Youth with Stress” on Pub MedCentral concludes “Auricular acupressure is an effective noninvasive intervention that increases HF to maintain autonomic function homeostasis in young women with primary dysmenorrhea. It may be valuable in alleviating menstrual pain and menstrual distress in high-life stress conditions.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876699/ This article from the journal publisher Mary Ann Liebert, entitled “The Effectiveness of Shiatsu: Findings from a Cross-European, Prospective Observational Study” concludes that “Clients receiving shiatsu reported improvements in symptom severity and changes in their health-related behaviour that they attributed to their treatment, suggestive of a role for shiatsu in maintaining and enhancing health.” http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2008.0085 This study entitled “The potential of complementary and alternative medicine in promoting well-being and critical health literacy: a prospective, observational study of shiatsu” from Biomedcentral, an imprint of Springer following 984 people receiving shiatsu states in its conclusion “the findings are strongly suggestive of a potentially powerful contribution of shiatsu to population health”. The findings included: people rating their symptoms significantly reduced over the 6 months; 86% saying that shiatsu was effective in treating stress and tension, postural problems, low energy and fatigue. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/9/19 A 2014 article from the Journal of Pregnancy  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jp/2014/129208/#B11 shows statistically significant reductions of pain in labour and significantly reduced chances of having a caesarean section.

So in conclusion it seems this article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

just a couple responses.

1) a WP:WALLOFTEXT is going to get you no where. no one - literally no one - is going to read all that, much less respond to everything that is there. This is WP:NOTFORUM. I have hatted it.

2) stop comparing wikipedia to other places. learn wikipedia's policies and guidelines and talk about them. it doesn't matter what other resources do. (the more you go on about britannica, the less credibility you have. really.

thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional note Eikoku you seem to have no idea what WP:NPOV actually says, since you are basing your judgement of what is "biased" or "inaccurate" on things extrinsic to Wikipedia. Please do not use tags that you do not understand. Thanks. Really. If you continue to ignore the fact that you are going to get banned. Please actually read the Very Large Notice at the top of this page called "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience". Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate article

I have put up evidence about the biased nature of the article with cross references to peer-reviews articles Pub Med Central, Elsevier, Sage, MAL - and the response you get is "no one - literally no one - is going to read all that" So what do you suggest? I have hatted it - what does that mean? "Stop comparing wikipedia to other places" - why? It doesn't matter what other resources do - wikipedia is based on numerous sources, encourages links so this makes no sense I am afraid. So I am basing my arguments on things extrinsic to wikipedia - like peer reviewed journals? If you continue to ignore the fact that you are going to get banned. What am I ignoring? Can you please be helpful and explain?

So perhaps you can be helpful and explain how this article should be updated to cite the evidence from the peer reviewed journals and remove the statement there is no evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for writing more briefly! "hatting" is collapsing the content. OK, when you created an account, and every time you edit Wikipedia, you agree to its Terms of Use. Some of those terms, are that you agree to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You seem to be completely unaware of them, yet you are writing these long posts and making strong claims, that have nothing to do with these policies and guidelines. If you keep editing the article like this, you are eventually going to blocked. That is what happens to people who edit in violation of policy (that is not a threat, it is just what happens; it is like telling someone "if you rob a bank, you will go to jail"). I am going to move to your talk page where I will explain how things work here. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing from scientific Journal Publishers with some of the highest impact factor journals in the world

There is nothing in the policy and guidelines which suggests that wikipedia prevents updates to articles by putting citations to scientific articles from Elsevier, BioMedCentral, Mary Ann Liebert, Sage - publishers with the highest impact factors in the world on some of the journals.

Jytdog[edit] WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content) - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals. These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Wikipedia. This is probably the key thing you need to learn. - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals.These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT. Pay special mind to the WP:PSCI section, which is further elaborated in the WP:FRINGE guideline. - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals.These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things. We are very careful not to discuss pre-clinical findings, as well as initial clinical results, as though they are applicable to medicine. We are very conservative in that regard! - These are published articles not pre-clinical findings as they are in published journals ...

So how is citing from these journals outside of wikipedia's policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

you do realize that the above, written here, is pure babble, right? I'll say here, that nothing you write above addresses WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what is written above, but would like to clarify that being published in a journal does not automatically qualify as a reliable source per WP:MEDRS (in fact, most publications in journals do not meet MEDRS as they are primary studies, editorials, etc.) Further clarification for the new editor will have to wait for a more coherent argument to identify where they seem to be misunderstanding this guideline. Yobol (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Eikoku, your "wall of text", above, is not helpful in addressing the topic at hand which is, I suppose, this revert which, as was pointed out earlier, removed well-verified content and replaced it with some non-neutral and unverified text: "There is a growing body of scientific literature written in western languages that shiatsu can be helpful in treating a range of different conditions, though like acupuncture it is not a replacement for western medicine" is followed by a negative assessment from CRUK, not with a reference that makes that general statement acceptable.

  The individual articles you link to above may well be acceptable and useful and all that, but if you use them only to build an argument against this article and its editors you'll not get very far. Better to propose smaller, individual edits based on those articles, so the articles and proposed edits can be judged rather than your somewhat forum-like post. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you both for weighing in. Eikoku was starting to make this about me. whew. (note - Eikoku's copied his note above from his talk page; what he did in that note was copy snips of something i had written to him, and respond within it, kind of. this is a difficult discussion) Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"in fact, most publications in journals do not meet MEDRS as they are primary studies, editorials, etc." Sorry? I think you will find that all articles in journals are write-ups of primary research not 'editorials." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

you still have not read the definition of "secondary source" in MEDRS. you still have not read it. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS states that we generally do not use primary studies for health information (such as individual clinical trials) but instead use secondary sources such as literature or systematic reviews that look at the body of primary literature as a whole. Please see WP:MEDREV. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Identifying reliable sources (medicine) wikipedia page says "Biomedical journals - Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles." These are what I have been trying to cite, but is being rejected / undone. Can someone explain precisely why such citations are being rejected?Eikoku (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)eikoku

you are ignoring what all three of us are telling you. I am not going to respond further until you actually deal with what we are saying, and I suggest the same for others.Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting source

This edit appears to be misrepresenting what the source says. Also, that other source is a private website, not a reliable source. Misrepresenting a source and/or using unreliable sourcing is a violation of the Pseudoscience ArbCom case and can result in sanction for all editors involved, so I've changed the text to more closely match what the source actually says. If any disagreement, please state so here before reverting the text back to a state that may be a violation. Cla68 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)